JUDGEMENT By Sri. Pampapathi President:- This is a complaint filed by the complainant K. Sharanappa against opposite Nos. 1 & 2 U/sec. 12 of Consumer Protection Act for to award a sum of Rs. 1,63,960/- towards cost of the repair charges of his vehicle which was damaged in the accident with interest and cost. 2. The brief facts of the complainants case are that, he is the owner of SCORPIO M2D1 vehicle bearing No. KA-36/M-4915 which was insured with opposite No-1 Insurance Company through its agent opposite No-2 vide policy bearing No. 1413782311001819 on 06-09-08 vide cover note dt. 2nd September 2008. The effective date of commencement of the policy is 2nd September 2008 and it will expire in the mid night of 1st September 2009. His vehicle met with an accident on 02-10-08 while insurance policy was inforce, thereafter, he lifted his damaged vehicle to M/s. Sutaria Auto Center, Hubli for repair it was intimated to opposite No-2 and its agent opposite No-1. He got repaired after examination of the surveyor by name Udaya Kanetkar, thereafter he filed claim petition along with necessary records before opposite No-1 but his claim was not settled in spite of his oral and written requests, hence this complaint was filed by him for the reliefs as noted in his complaint. 3. Opposite No-1 appeared in this case through its Advocate filed its written version. Opposite No-2 is placed Ex-parte. The brief facts of the written version filed by opposite No-1 are that, the complaint filed by the complainant is false, frivolous & vexatious and this forum has no jurisdiction to try it, there was no accident as contended by complainant, insurance company was not informed immediately after alleged accident, driver was not having valid driving licence to drive it. The complainant informed the alleged accident after two months from the date of accident. However company appointed one Udaya Kanetkar investigator to investigate the matter. There was no resemblance with respect to the alleged damage to the vehicle to the physical damage of the vehicle. It denied all other allegations of the complainant and claims of him and prayed for to dismiss the complaint among other grounds. 4. In-view of the pleadings of the parties. Now the points that arise for our consideration and determination are that: 1. Whether the complainant proves that, his SCORPIO M2D1 vehicle bearing No. KA-36/M-4915 insured with opposite No- 1 for own damages through opposite No-2, for a period from 2nd September 2008 to 1st September 2009 met with an accident on 20-10-08 while the policy was inforce, in between the Tekkalakota and Sirguppa Public Road and in the said accident, the vehicle badly damaged, he informed the same to opposite No-1, thereafter he lifted the vehicle to Hubli and got repaired in M/s. Sutaria Auto Center, Hubli and thereafter he filed claim petition along with necessary records, but opposite No-1 not settled his claim inspite of his oral and written requests and thereby opposite No-1 found guilty under deficiency in its services.? 2. Whether complainant is entitled for the reliefs as prayed in his complaint. 3. What order? 5. Our findings on the above points are as under:- (1) In the affirmative. (2) As discussed in the body of this judgement and as noted in the final order. (3) In-view of the findings on Point Nos- 1 & 2, we proceed to pass the final order for the following : REASONS POINT NO.1 & 2:- 6. To prove the facts involved in these two points, affidavit-evidence of the complainant was filed, he was noted as PW-1. The documents Ex.P-1 to Ex.P-11 are marked. On the other hand affidavit-evidence of Deputy Legal Manager of opposite No-1 Insurance Company was filed, who is noted as RW-1 and documents Ex.R-1 to R-12 are marked. 7. Opposite No-1 has denied the insuring the vehicle of the complainant bearing No. KA-36/M 4915 and issuance of policy in respect of own damages of the vehicle in its written version. However opposite No-1 produced insurance policy copy of the said vehicle which was marked as Ex.R-12. The complainant also produced the Xerox copies of Ex.R-12 which are marked as Ex.P-2 & Ex.P-3, in view of the circumstances stated above, we are of the view that, the denial of issuance of policy by opposite No-1 in its written version might be for the sake of denial of entire claim of complainant. Under the said circumstances and on perusal of the above said policy and cover note issued by opposite No-1, it is very much clear that the vehicle of the complainant bearing No. KA-36/M 4915 was insured with Insurance Company Opposite No-1 for own damages of the vehicle and it was inforce from 2nd September 2008 till mid night of 1st September 2009. Hence this contention of the opposite No-1 is rejected. 8. The second point for our consideration is as to whether this forum has got jurisdiction to try the subject matter of this complaint. According to the submissions made by the learned advocate for opposite No-1, the place of alleged accident is on Tekkalakota Sirguppa Public Road which comes under the jurisdiction of Bellary District. Hence this Forum has no jurisdiction to try the subject matter. 9. On the other hand the learned advocate for complainant submitted before us that, this Forum has got jurisdiction to try the subject matter of the complaint, in view of section 11 of C.P. Act. 10. Keeping in mind the submissions made on both sides and also in view of section 11 of CP Act, we are of the view that, this Forum has got jurisdiction to try the subject matter for the reasons that, complainant is resident of Raichur, he obtained insurance policy of the vehicle from opposite No-1 through its authorized agent opposite No-2 with its office at Raichur. In view of the facts and circumstances of this case, we are of the view that, this Forum has got jurisdiction to try the subject matter of this complaint, in view of section 11 of C.P. Act, as such we also not accepted this contention of this opposite No-1 to dismiss the complaint. 11. The third contention of opposite No-1 are of having material facts to decide the fate of complainant, according to the learned advocate for opposite No-1 the alleged accident not at all took place on the said date, time and place. No police complaint was filed by him, if really there was an accident as alleged he could have filed a police complaint which mandatory obligation on his part. He not informed the fact of accident to its office immediately as per the terms and conditions of the policy. He informed the alleged accident after lapse of two months from the date of alleged accident. Opposite No-1 appointed its own investigator by name Udaya Kanetkar he investigated the matter, complainant shown the alleged place of accident which has no signs of accidents and thereby the cumulative effect of all the circumstances clearly establishes the fact that, there was no accident and the claim of complainant is false, frivolous and vexatious and deserves for dismissal. 12. The advocate for complainant contended before us that, there was an accident on the said date, time and place due to wrong driving of bullock cart, the same was intimated and thereafter he lifted the vehicle M/s. Sutaria Auto Center, Hubli and got repaired it. The investigator appointed by opposite No-1 also inspected the vehicle, place of accident and got collected all necessary informations from the complainant and thereby there is no valid grounds for not settling his claim. 13. The investigator report filed by opposite No-1 which is marked as Ex.R-1. The said report reveals the enquiry made by one Udaya Kanetkar who inspected working place of complainant and got some information from him. He also inspected the alleged place of accident, he observed certain things as noted by him on the alleged place of accident and information given by the complainant. We gone through the report of Ex.R-1 from the report it is very much clear that, the vehicle was badly damaged, as regards to other observations of investigator are not having much importance in this case because of the fact that, the insurance policy is covered to the vehicle by covering risk of own damages, it is not a criminal case to go through as to whether the accident took place on the alleged place are not for to convict the accused, we concerned only regarding the breach of the terms and conditions if any by the complainant in respect of his claim under the policy, as such we have not given much importance to investigation report Ex.R-1 and to the positive photographs Ex.R-2, Ex. R-2(1) to Ex.R-2(5) and negative films of them Ex.R-3 and non filing the complaint by him before the police after the said accident and accordingly we rejected this contention of opposite No-1 for keeping silent without settling the claim of the complainant. 14. Another contention that was taken by the opposite No-1 to deny the claim of complainant is that, the driver of the vehicle was not having valid licence to drive it. We are not accepting this contention of the opposite No-1 for the reason that, the vehicle was having RC and Fitness Certificate issued by competent authority vide Ex.P-1 as regards to driving licence is concerned, Ex.P-11 shows that, one B. Kiran Kumar was driving the vehicle has got valid licence to drive it on the said date, time and place of accident. Hence this contention also not having any material weight to consider it, accordingly it is also rejected. 15. As regards to the damage to the vehicle is concerned, the opposite have much relied at Ex.R-1, Ex.R-2, Ex.R-2(1) to Ex.R-2(5) and postal receipts Ex.R-6 & Ex.R-7. No doubt there are some minor variations in respect of the description given by the complainant to the receipt produced credit bills Ex.P-7 & Ex.P-8 we have taken note of these discrepancies we have not considered the credit bills Ex.P-7 & Ex.P-8 however Ex.P-10 bill dt. 18-12-08 for Rs. 88,969/- and Ex.P-9 dt. 27-10-08 for Rs. 75,000/- shows that complainant paid this amount under two bills to M/s. Sutaria Auto Center, Hubli towards repair charges of his damaged vehicle under accident. We have not noticed any fraud said to have played by the complainant with regard to payment of Rs. 1,63,969/- under the said policy to Sutaria Auto Center, Hubli for repair of his damaged vehicle. Hence he is entitled for to get an amount of Rs. 1,63,969/- from the opposite No-1. We have noticed the deficiency in service on the part of opposite No-1 for non settling the claim of complainant, as such complainant is entitled to recover a lumpsum amount of Rs. 3,000/- from opposite No-1 towards deficiency in service. A lumpsum amount of Rs. 3,000/- is granted towards cost of this litigation. 16. The complainant is entitled to get total amount of Rs. 1,69,969/- which is rounded to Rs. 1,70,000/- from opposite No-1 only. 17. The complainant also entitled to get interest at the rate of 9% p.a. on the total sum of Rs. 1,70,000/- from the date of this complaint till realization of the full amount from opposite No-1. Accordingly we answered Point No- 1 & 2. POINT NO.3:- 18. In view of our findings on Point Nos-1 & 2, we proceed to pass the following order: ORDER The complaint filed by the complainant is partly allowed with cost. The complainant is totally entitled to recover an amount of Rs. 1,70,000/- from the opposite No-1 only. The complainant is entitled to recover future interest at the rate of 9% p.a. on the above total sum of Rs. 1,70,000/- from the date of the complaint till realization of the full amount. Complaint against opposite No-2 is dismissed. Opposite No-1 is hereby granted one month time to comply the above order from the date of this judgment for to make the payment. Intimate the parties accordingly. (Dictated to the Stenographer, typed, corrected and then pronounced in the open Forum on 20-05-10) Sd/- Sri. Pampapathi, President, District Forum-Raichur. Sd/- Sri. Gururaj, Member, District Forum-Raichur. Sd/- Smt.Pratibha Rani Hiremath, Member. District Forum-Raichur.
Consumer Court Lawyer
Best Law Firm for all your Consumer Court related cases.
